SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the Army Hospital Corps attached to the British Expeditionary Force in Egypt was so deficient in men and appliances that, had it not been for the loan of a large number of bearers and dandies by the Indian Contingent, it would have been impossible to have removed the wounded from the field of Tel-el-Kebir, except after a long delay; and, if this is the case, who was responsible for this state of things?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, I will refer the hon. Baronet to the reply of Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff, to Question No. 6,079 of the Evidence taken by Lord Morley's Committee of Inquiry. The Question was—
Before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir you got a number of Indian dhoolie bearers from the Indian Contingent. Was that in consequence of the British bearer companies not being sufficient?Sir John Adye replied—No; but knowing that they had a large establishment, and as the Native regiments were very few in number up at the front, I thought it was common sense that the superfluity of that establishment should be devoted to the general use of the Army on that occasion.This view is supported by the evidence of Sir Herbert Macpherson. (See Q. 636.) There is no doubt, however, that the dhoolie bearers attached to the Indian Contingent rendered most valuable service to the British troops, which I have no desire or intention of depreciating.